a report on alignment of masters of risk management course to student needs and industry trends

1 Chant Link & Associates: 3148 Master of Risk Management Report

A Report on Alignment of Masters of Risk Management Course to Student Needs and Industry TrendsProject Number 3148, 12th March 2008Prepared for: Norm Wall, Group Manager, Marketing and Recruitment, Faculty of Business & Economics, Monash University and Michael Vincent, Course LeaderProject Manager: Lachlan Drummond, Director


ContentsBackground

Objectives

Research Approach & Sample

Main Findings

Growth in Risk Management

Drivers of Growth

Issues in Risk Management

Education Provider Awareness and Positioning

Drivers of Study

Attitudes Towards Monash Course Overall

Reaction to Individual Units

Reaction to Possible Course Change

Suggestions for Changes and Improvements

Conclusions

Recommendations

3

5

9

10

11

16

19

29

34

39

51

61

70

84

88


Background

Background


BackgroundMaster of risk management: Risk management is a growth area in the Australian economy as

businesses have become more sophisticated in recognising and planning for risk related issues.

The Master of Risk Management at Monash University has experienced growth since 2002. The

course provides education in the area of risk management and related topics appropriate for

practitioners seeking to meet professional education requirements or update their skills in

specific risk management areas.

Need for research: Whilst the course is successful, it has grown organically and without a clear

understanding as to the needs, expectations and satisfaction of prospective and current

students.

Consequently, Monash University approached Chant Link & Associates to propose research

aimed at understanding these issues among others, so that the Master of Risk Management is

optimised for the student experience and enrolments.


Research ObjectivesOverall objective: Determine the needs, expectations and overall attitudes among key

stakeholders to the Master of Risk Management and to provide Monash with insights that

enables it to make decisions to maximise the success of the program and manage its direction.

Specific objectives: To meet the overall objective, the following specific objectives were

identified:

Industry and provider related:

Identify overall industry trends and growth areas in Risk Management and the extent to

which higher education overall and Monash specifically is addressing these trends;

Understand the extent and quality of Monash-industry engagement;

Determine industry awareness of the Master of Risk Management at Monash and attitudes

to it including suggestions for improving quality of relationship and communications between

industry and Monash.

Industry and provider related, continued…

Identify other major providers of Master of Risk Management programs and the relative

standing of each, including:

□ Strengths, weaknesses, positioning, reputations and how Monash compares to other

providers.


Research Objectives … continued

Specific objectives … continued

Course related: Determine attitudes to the Master of Risk Management course overall and the

units offered including:

Determine attitudes to course structure including strengths, weaknesses, satisfaction and

suggestions for improvements and underlying reasons;

Identify strengths and weaknesses of each unit and the relative importance attached to

each. For example:

□ How appropriate and valued is each unit and why?

□ Determine whether the content of each unit is appropriate;

□ Identify gaps in course and unit content. Are there any specific units that should be

offered that are not (that would meet needs and industry trends)?

Determine the quality of the student experience overall and drivers and detractors of this;




Course-related … continued

Determine the importance of and preferences for other factors that impact on attitudes including

(but not limited to):

□ Student cohort (Including aptitude, appropriate career levels and domestic and

international student ratios);

□ Attitudes to and appropriateness of assessment;

□ Extent to which the course equipped students in their careers;

□ Entry requirements;

□ Fees;

□ Staffing; (current, desired)

□ Course structure;

□ Communications;

□ Facilities;

□ Study modes




Strategic objectives:

Determine awareness of and opinions on current marketing communications. Identify

preferences and suggestions for improvements;

Understand optimum course configuration for attracting students and improving the overall

positioning;

Make recommendations to guide course content and structure;

Identify industries of relevance for targeting of future students;

Provide Monash with a ‘road map’ which guides the future development of the Master of

Risk management including course content, structure and units offered.

Understand reactions to a possible shift in alignment more towards a GSB positioning and

possibly away from an Accounting and Finance positioning.


Research Approach & Sample StructureResearch method: As the objectives of this project related to understanding attitudes and

underlying reasons for these attitudes, a qualitative depth interview approach was selected.

Sample structure: 21 interviewees were recruited from a list of approximately 50 current

students, sessional lecturers, alumni and industry leaders supplied by Monash.

Interviews of approximately 45 minutes were conducted with students and alumni included a

an even mix of male, female, domestic and international students. The interviews were

conducted in December 2007.

The following table illustrates the final sample structure.

Students AlumniSessional

LecturersIndustry Leaders Total

6 9 1 5 21

Note: Within this sample there were four interviews conducted with two participants, bringin the total

number of people interviewed to 25.


Industry Trends

Main Findings:

Evolution & Issues in Risk Management


Growth in Risk ManagementGrowth in risk management: Participants viewed risk management as a fast-growing area, which had evolved substantially in the last 20 to 30 years. They noted the following key changes:

Increased level of importance: Business was perceived to place more importance on risk management as it came to understand the benefits of good risk management practices (and the implications of failure). Many participants reported senior management and boards beginning to embrace risk management, which influenced corporate behaviour as risk practices filtered down through management levels to the rest of the employees.

“Every dog has it’s day and this profession is at the top now. It is high on organisational prominence.”

“Risk Management is the current flavour. It is in the growth phase of a product life cycle. You can see it in ads for workplace safety, cooling towers and Legionnaire's Disease through to food poisoning.”

Broadening focus: Where traditionally risk management had focused on finance, insurance and loss prevention, its focus was now broadening to include end-to-end business processes.

“Risk Management is now a broad church.” [Industry Leader, Banking & Finance]


More strategic and integrated into end-to-end business practice: Risk management processes were starting to permeate all aspects of business activities. Risk management was now becoming a way of doing business as opposed to simply a function. Many interviewees made comments to this effect:

“Risk management is becoming integrated into business processes. You now need a [risk management] framework which drives your policies … like, procurement risk should [now] be part of your procurement policy.”

“It is a company wide process. It is not solely a finance issue.”

“In the current market most companies look at risk management in terms of financial risk management. However risk management has much more of an operational role in the organisation. It’s about control and implementing procedures across the business to be able to avoid risks.”

“Five years ago nobody knew what risk management was, let alone had heard of a person who specialised as a risk manager. Today there is much wider knowledge.”

“I think one of the main things that will happen in the industry is that there will be a move to see risk management as not being solely about financial or insurance type risks. I think that the leading organisations will see risk management as an integrated procedure that touches all parts of the company.”

Growth in Risk Management…continued


Risk Management accepted as a “profession”: In the past, risk managers tended to “fall”

into the job; there was a view that almost anyone could do risk management. Today, risk

managers are expected to liaise with all levels within a business (e.g. from the board level

down), anticipate situations and take a proactive approach to managing risk. Consequently,

risk management had moved from a more peripheral function to a central role. This has had

positive implications on the perceived importance and maturity of the profession.

“Most organisations only consider risk management as moderately important. Until it is seen

in terms of its critical nature, it will sit outside the more traditional professions. Slowly

though, it is moving to be perceived at a strategic level.”

“Given the focus of much of risk management on financial risk, many of the people in the

industry are at least accounting degree qualified. I think that there will be a move toward

specialisation in terms of degree qualification for risk managers as a result of the role being

integrated across the company.”



Increased importance of qualifications: With the growth of risk management has come

the need for employers to identify and appoint more qualified risk managers. Participants

noted that there was now greater importance placed on risk management qualifications and

appropriate experience.

“You see advertisements for jobs in finance that state that they are seeking a CPA for

instance, we are not seeing that in risk management yet. But I think as the market

[employers] becomes more educated about the importance of risk management and the

type of qualifications that are available, then we may start to see job advertisements

requesting specific qualifications.”



More proactive, less reactive: Business has moved from perceiving risk management as a

discipline to a profession. Previously, many organisations had taken an “operational” risk

management approach and preferred to wait until action was needed or forced upon it. A

number of participants commented that this focus on losses resulted in many lost business

opportunities. Risk management was now providing opportunities to improve reputation and

increase profits. One example provided was Qantas, which had been able to capitalise on

its safety record, which had strong appeal to air travelers, particularly after 9/11.

“In our industry the traditional approach to risk has been for some regulator to come along

and find something wrong, fine us, and then we fix it. Since I started in this job we have not

had one fine, and we have not had one large exposure… in fact this year we expected a

30% increase in our insurance premiums and because of our risk management plans we

actually received only about a 5% increase.” [Alumni, Racing Industry]

“ … risk management became about how do you grasp opportunities. Suddenly risk was no

longer negative risk, just doom and gloom, it had opportunity as well as protection from

loss.“ [Industry Leader]



Drivers of Risk Management GrowthDrivers of risk management growth: As noted, risk management has experienced a period of strong growth. Participants noted a variety of reasons for the growth of risk management. The key drivers were:

High profile corporate failures: Widespread publicity of high profile failures in the late 1990s and early 2000s (e.g. WorldCom, Enron and HIH) had highlighted the possible impacts of poor risk management. Participants noted that the far reaching impacts of such failures (e.g. substantial financial losses, damage to reputation, and in some cases corporate collapses and criminal charges) provided a strong incentive to effectively manage risk.

“This generated a whole focus of the community to stop businesses doing whatever they wanted to do!.. One example is Enron…” [Alumni, Banking & Finance]

Increasing litigation: There was also a general view that society was becoming more litigious, and organisations were taking steps to protect their businesses from harmful actions.

Strong global economic growth: General economic growth and boom meant that organisations had grown quickly and had to have processes in place to manage the increased levels of risk. Additionally, as organisations grew, there was more at stake should anything go wrong.


Global risk: A perceived increase in terrorism had contributed to a greater awareness of

risk and a broadening of the elements of risk to be considered. The risk of terrorism had

made risk avoidance or mitigation much more critical, particularly as human lives and

expensive assets were at stake (in addition to possible financial losses).

Increasing personal liability: There was a perception of an increased risk of executive

liability. Where individuals perceived a personal risk, they were more likely to focus on and

enforce risk management policies and process.

“In the US hundreds of Directors have gone to jail. I know of a $10 million law suit from

shareholders. These things scare boards into taking risk seriously.”

Drivers of Risk Management Growth … continued


Regulatory drivers: Regulatory drivers were increasing, particularly as more legislation

was introduced (e.g. Corporations Act in 2001). At the time of the fieldwork, some

participants were implementing processes to comply with recently introduced Anti-Money-

Laundering (AML) legislation, and this required a high level of expertise from Risk Managers

in interpreting legislative requirements and rolling out new processes. Others also talked

about risk being incorporated into Standards Australia and the Australian Stock Exchange

Principles of Good Corporate Governance, all of which contributed to greater adoption in the

private sector.

“The government is the insurer of last resort and they don’t want to have to pick up the

pieces and fund large losses.”

“ … companies now have risk management committees, because they are required to by

legislation…”

Drivers of Risk Management Growth … continued


Issues in Risk ManagementCurrent issues confronting risk managers: Participants identified a number of key issues

confronting risk management professionals, which they believed required specific skill sets,

which possibly represented opportunities for providers of risk management education:

Climate change: A few participants were very passionate about the impact of climate

change on business, and how important it was for risk managers to account for this.

Businesses now needed to factor in risks associated with global temperature changes,

drought, flooding just to being with. Some participants also noted that there were

opportunities that astute businesses could take advantage of once the risk was identified

(e.g. more efficient cars or cars which used renewable resources was a growth area).

“The other thing that we need to look at is the role of risk management in planning for

climate change and all the problems that go with that … now Emergency Management

Australia and the Charles Sturt University have started to address that …”


Outcomes not always tangible: It was often difficult to sell the benefits of risk

management to senior management, as the cost benefit to business was not always

apparent. Risk Managers needed to understand how to effectively communicate with

Boards (which some participants noted preferred quantifiable reporting methods).

“I can’t tell people how may risks I prevented this year, which makes it difficult to sell

internally. Risk Management is working well when nothing happens!”

“There is that perception in industry that risk management is about sorting out lose ends… if

I have my way, I’ll change that….”

Risk management a passing phase?: There remained a view in some businesses that

risk management was a “buzz word” now, but that it would become less fashionable, thus

there was limited benefit in investing in this area. Participants reported problems obtaining

adequate resourcing as a result of this, and that it was a key skill required in top risk

management to overcome this mind-set within management.

“There is a perception out there that risk management is just a passing phase, which means

that the risk management area is often very under resourced … just look at my organisation

– it has 5,000 people, but I’m it [the only risk management resource]!”

Issues in Risk Management… continued


Increased focus on IT: Businesses were more aware of the risks surrounding their

information technology, particularly:

□ Legacy systems: Were complex and often not well documented, and there were skills

shortages for maintenance staff;

□ New system implementations: Greater importance was now placed on project

management and risk management methodology, particularly was government

departments introduced more criteria (e.g. Department of Finance and Trade had

introduced the Gateway Program).

Importance of corporate governance: Many participants had noticed an increase in

corporate governance, brought on both by government legislation and better understanding

from business as to how vital good governance was. This high focus on governance,

particularly by senior management, was an excellent opening for Risk Managers to “sell” the

importance of the organisations having an effective risk management framework.



Increasing compliance activities: A few participants commented that compliance activities

were growing. While most spoke positively about this, they also noted that this required high

levels of expertise from risk management areas and also had an impact on risk

management resourcing (since compliance was often effort intensive, and mandatory).

“In particular I think that compliance management is a huge, up and coming area. I have

heard so much about it lately … “



Risk Management Evolution: As already discussed, risk management has had a gradual

evolution of the last 20-30 years.

In summary, participants believed risk management in its early stages had a strong finance and

insurance focus. Risk management was then more focused on “operational” activities, and

tended to have a reactive approach. A number of drivers had resulted in today’s risk

management having a broader vision, being integrated into business processes and being used

to seek more business opportunities (i.e. it is more proactive). This raises the question of

whether risk management will continue to grow or stabilise:

Continued growth?: Risk management may develop its proactive focus, integration and

become even more prominent as corporate Australia recognises the importance and

benefits of risk management, or …



Risk Management Evolution, continued…

Stabilisation?: Corporate Australia might lose interest in risk management, perceiving it as

a cost (with limited tangible benefits) and an outcome of an overly risk averse society

currently. If this was the case, risk management growth would stabilise (or even decline).

And it might go the way of other management ‘fads’ such as TQM or even the Just-In-Time

approach to logistics and inventory which went through a phase of popularity, before waning

or being overtaken by other preferred models. Notably, a KPMG report of 2005 suggests:

“…nearly half of our survey respondents believed that their organisations’ risk management

strategies were not well aligned with business goals, suggests that the practice of strategic

risk management has yet to be fully integrated into many organisations.” 1

Although some three years old, this does suggest that integration and acceptance of risk

management still has some way to go. The antecedents and possible future for risk

management is summarised in the following exhibit illustrates this evolution.

1 KPMG, Strategic Risk Management Survey, 2005. (sample size n=80 senior risk managers from Top 200 ASX / NZXS

companies).



Past: A Function- Anyone able to do role;- No qualifications required;- Strong Finance / insurance focus;- Ad hoc approach;- Non-strategic;- Limited resourcing.

1990s Now

Today: A profession- Qualifications / experience often required;- Gaining credibility;- Emphasis on finance remains;- Still viewed as a cost (rather than a benefit).- Hard to sell to management.

Future

Drivers

Growing profession- Qualifications mandatory- Integrated into core business - Senior management support- Part of business KPIs

Growing profession- Qualifications mandatory- Integrated into core business - Senior management support- Part of business KPIs

Stabilisation - Remains reactive- Restricted to financial /Loss focus- RM treated as a phase- Viewed as a cost / burden

Stabilisation - Remains reactive- Restricted to financial /Loss focus- RM treated as a phase- Viewed as a cost / burden

Growth

Stabilisation or Decline?

Continued growth: “A Profession”

FutureBased on secondary data and the interviews, we would predict further growth. We do not believe that RM is a fad and instead will continue to be integrated into business processes. This is discussed further on the following page.

Low profile: “Function”

- Terrorism;- Corporate Failures;

- Increased Litigation;

- Etc.



The Future for Risk Management: The model on the previous page suggests that risk

management may continue to grow or potentially stabilise / decline. Chant Link believes that it is

unlikely to stabilise / decline and will instead continue to grow. There are several reasons for this

conclusion:

The drivers of growth are likely to remain: The factors that have led to the growth in risk

management are predicted to remain intact. For example, it would be unlikely that corporate

failures will disappear (and therefore risk management processes to deal with this will

continue to develop). In addition, it seems inevitable that new risks will develop for which

risk management strategies will be required, such as environmental change, terrorism etc.

Therefore it would seem reasonable to predict continued growth in risk management given

the drivers.

Integrated into business processes: A further factor likely to drive continued growth in

risk management is that it has become (and will continue to become) integrated across all

facets of business processes (and all industry sectors). For this to occur it has necessitated

a high level of organisation-wide commitment which suggests a high level of perceived

importance and a reduced likelihood of ‘unwinding’ risk management.



The Future for Risk Management, continued…

Regulatory Commitment: Another factor that will continue to see risk management grow is

government and regulatory commitment to the area. Through organisations such as

Standards Australia, the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and even the Risk Management

Institution of Australasia, the likelihood of further development (i.e. further evolution of

standards, greater government adoption, integration with law etc) seems assured. For

example, the ASX in its document Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best

Practice Recommendations, has as Principle 7: Recognise and Manage Risk.

In summary, whilst it is possible that risk management as a discipline may stabilise or not be

adopted by some sections of industry, this seems unlikely given its growth to date and that the

causes of the growth are likely to remain. Consequently, we would predict further growth and

integration of risk intra- and inter-business, though as might be expected, in some industries the

take-up is likely to be slower.

This augurs well for Monash, since with growth and complexity comes a need for education in

this area.



Secondary Data Analysis: The primary data gathering has led to the development of the model

on an earlier slide. In addition, Chant Link & Associates undertook a top-line analysis of

secondary data on risk management aimed at confirming the primary data and identifying trends

in risk management.

Employment trends: Based on figures including membership of RMIA (around 2,000) and

the monthly circulation of Risk Management Magazine (has a circulation of around 10,000)

as well as other data, we estimate that the number of people employed in roles directly

related to risk management in Australia to be around 7,000. There is little data available on

employment trends in this area, though anecdotally, there appears to be strong growth and

probably around 5% per annum.

Continued integration of risk: Much of the literature available suggests that risk

management as a profession is in high demand and becoming more integrated within

business practices, which supports the primary data from this report.

Trends in risk: One area of growth in risk appears to be in the area of reputational risk

management. A PWC study of 2004 study found that banks considered reputational risk the

greatest threat to their market value. However, risk was clearly dominated by operational

and financial risk.

Secondary Data on Risk Management


Education Trends

Main Findings:



Education Provider Awareness and PositioningGrowth in risk management education providers: Participants (particularly alumni) noted that

at the time of the MRM’s introduction in 2002, there were limited risk management alternatives.

Alumni were also unaware of other universities that offered risk management study by block

mode at that time.

Mixed levels of Awareness: Awareness of other risk management education providers wase

mixed, even amongst industry leaders. The most commonly mentioned providers were Monash,

the University of NSW, and Griffith University. Many of the current student participants had only

investigated the Monash course, and a number still believed that this was the only course

available.

“I looked at ANU and a course in international economics but decided on Monash because it

seemed to be the only one offering a Masters in Risk Management.”

Provider positioning: The following comments were made about the risk management

education providers mentioned:

University of NSW: Had its genesis in the OH&S area and specifically health and still had a

a positioning in this area. It was quite well regarded, particularly by industry leaders.


Griffith University: There appeared to be some confusion amongst participants about

Griffith’s focus. Some viewed this as an OH&S focused course, while on the industry

leaders (who worked in the Commonwealth Government) stated that it was known as a high

quality degree with a public sector focus. Those that were aware of Griffith’s risk

management offer (only about one quarter of the sample) believed it was well regarded.

Swinburne university: The risk management course was part of the engineering faculty,

and had a strong engineering focus (indeed, some viewed it as too technical).

“I completed one unit at Swinburne. It was terrible! All we did for the whole course was go

into a tutorial room with a person from industry and each week he would sit down and say

‘OK, who has a story for today?’, then we would proceed to listen to his or other peoples

stories… We learnt nothing, and I told them at the end of the course that it was terrible.”

Macquarie University: This course was biased towards finance and accounting, and had

the greatest appeal to those who worked within financial services.

RMIT: Very few participants were aware of the RMIT course, but those that were thought it

had a finance and accounting focus.



Other universities: A number of other universities and TAFEs offered risk management as

electives as part of different degrees (such as finance & accounting, MBAs, etc …). One

participant spoke highly of Victoria University’s environmental sustainable risk management

course offered as part of the summer school.

Monash University: In general, Monash was perceived to have an exceptional reputation

and was generally viewed as an industry leader. Participants made the following

observations about its positioning:

□ One of the first providers of a MRM in the market, although some participants

wondered whether Monash had really capitalised on this position.

“Monash hasn’t fully capitalised on its ‘first-horse-out-of-the-gate’ advantage. I think it

could improve relationships with the Risk Management Association.”

□ Supported by industry (such as the Risk Management Institution of

Australia), although some industry leaders believed that this relationship had

weakened since the MRM’s reception.

“ … well, RMIA’s predecessor actually put money into the [Monash] course when it

was starting up.”



Monash University … continued

□ Most participants were extremely positive about Michael Vincent. Many argued that

Michael was a drawcard for the course.

“Michael is an amazing mind. If he were to leave Monash University, that would be an

enormous loss to the University – his followers would follow Michael. Michael’s forward

thinking matches academics and professors I talk to – he is strong, practical, broad

and lateral thinker”

□ Some participants felt that Monash’s MRM had a finance and accounting positioning,

and that this was not ideal.

“I have spoken with a number of people who have considered [Monash’s MRM] course

and then decided against it because of the Accounting and Finance focus. In fact I

know of people who have started the course and then dropped it because they do not

like that focus.”

Further comments on Monash risk management appear later in this report under specific

reactions.



Drivers for Study

Main Findings:

Drivers of Study


Drivers of Risk Management StudyReasons for studying risk management varied between students with no industry experience

(industry entrants) and those currently employed in a risk management capacity (industry

members).

Industry entrants: Most of the industry entrant participants had commenced the MRM not long

after completing their undergraduate degree. Industry entrants often stated that they needed a

postgraduate qualification to increase their chances of employment in a well-paying and

responsible role, although some specifically wanted to move into a risk management role at the

advice of family, friends or undergraduate lectures. Their reasons for choosing to study an MRM

are summarised in the following exhibit.

Industry Entrants

1. Accidental discovery: Had discovered a risk management course by chance and thought it looked “interesting” or “challenging”.

2. Broad appeal and job prospects: Risk management would apply to many different industries & countries, thus had strong appeal to prospective employers.

3. Encouragement from others: managers, friends who are MRM alumni, undergraduate lecturers or family.

4. Desire for a ‘unique’ career: Considered a ‘new’ industry and probably had skills shortages resulting in high demand for suitably qualified people.

Industry Entrants

1. Accidental discovery: Had discovered a risk management course by chance and thought it looked “interesting” or “challenging”.

2. Broad appeal and job prospects: Risk management would apply to many different industries & countries, thus had strong appeal to prospective employers.

3. Encouragement from others: managers, friends who are MRM alumni, undergraduate lecturers or family.

4. Desire for a ‘unique’ career: Considered a ‘new’ industry and probably had skills shortages resulting in high demand for suitably qualified people.


Drivers of Risk Management Study … continued

Industry entrant quotations:

“I was looking at finance [at Monash], and I just saw risk management there … it looked

interesting …”

“… finance or risk management … it’s not just limiting you to Australia, it has good scope outside

of Australia, in the US, in the UK, everywhere.”

“Risk Management is definitely a growth area. It is still developing in my country but knowing that

there is work in this area motivated me to study.” [Current International Student]

“I had no idea what risk management was about. I was told it would differentiate me and make

me more employable. Thailand has to implement Basel II and I knew that because of this there

would be lots of jobs available in risk management.”

“I didn’t want to learn the typical things.”



Industry Members

1. Broaden or enhance skills: As risk management methodology matured, participants felt a need to increase their own skills (or perhaps develop in new areas in order to change employers).

2. Enhance credibility: Having ‘fallen’ into risk management, some wanted to lend more credibility to their expertise.

3. Differentiate from colleagues and competitors: The number of employees increased inline with the industry’s profile, thus it became more important to standout.

4. Career progression: Qualifications were used for self promotion or as a stepping point to change organisations.

Industry Members

1. Broaden or enhance skills: As risk management methodology matured, participants felt a need to increase their own skills (or perhaps develop in new areas in order to change employers).

2. Enhance credibility: Having ‘fallen’ into risk management, some wanted to lend more credibility to their expertise.

3. Differentiate from colleagues and competitors: The number of employees increased inline with the industry’s profile, thus it became more important to standout.

4. Career progression: Qualifications were used for self promotion or as a stepping point to change organisations.

Industry members: Those already in the industry generally had an undergraduate qualification

that was unrelated to risk management, and wanted to upgrade their skills and qualifications.

Some participants were risk managers who had recently taken roles in different industry sectors

(e.g. they had been the risk manager within the health sector, and were now employed as a risk

manager in banking and finance). The drivers for undertaking risk management study for these

people included:



Industry member quotations:

“… that was going to be a way to show people that not only do I have the experience in this

area, but I have a piece of paper that shows that I’m good at it. All these things are tickets to the

game, you prove yourself later.”

[Alumni and Industry Leader]

“One of the reasons I have MRM (Monash) on my business card is to increase the awareness

among people I am in contact with. Also it’s an important differentiator for my company, there is a

similar company in Melbourne who decided to appoint a risk manager. Rather than advertise or

find someone with experience, they just appointed a bit of an ‘odds and end’ person to the role. “

[Alumni, Racing Industry]


Course Content

Main Findings:

Attitudes to Course Overall


Attitudes to Course Overall Generally positive: Taken overall, most regarded the mix of units to be appropriate and to cover

the key issues in risk management. There were a number of comments that the course tended to

over-emphasise insurance and finance and used, in some cases, outdated examples. Risk

management was a fast moving field thus it was important that material was kept up to date.

“I really liked my course and people who taught me…”

“… the whole course, not individual subjects, looked to me to be spot on, pretty much up the ally

of the sort of thing you’d need to know to be competent in risk management.”

“I have had a great time in the Masters of Risk Management course. I found it stimulating,

creative, and motivating - especially when compared with my undergraduate study.”

Drivers of positive attitudes: There were a range of reasons as to why the Monash MRM was

well regarded. These included:

High quality and uniqueness: Many participants felt that the Monash MRM still maintained

a unique position as one of the few providers which provided a high quality risk

management qualification that was not too industry specific (e.g. other providers had a

strong finance or OH&S focus), although other participants suggested that this could be

broadened further.

“I think Monash is a notch or two above the others.”


Attitudes to Course Overall … continued

Drivers of positive attitudes… continued

One of the few to offer block mode: As might be expected, block mode appealed to

students in full time employment, and for many, this had been a major drawcard to study at

Monash. Block mode both provided an opportunity for full time workers to study (where they

would not able to attend regular lectures, particularly during business hours), and also

provided an opportunity for students to meet others working in different industries.

“I really enjoyed the ability to be able to meet and mingle with people who had worked in

industry before – this was great for me because I have not had any industry experience,

coming straight from undergraduate studies. I really tried to associate with these students

and learn as much as possible.”

Highly regarded lecturers and staff: The MRM had a number of excellent lecturers, who

were particularly good at engaging their students.

“ … it may just be his [the lecturer’s] style, but he was treating them [the students] like they

were just sitting around having a conversation, and learning, and putting their bits and

pieces in and contributing that way. What a great way to do things.”

“The staff and the facilities that we had access to at Monash were all great… in particular

the staff were always approachable and willing to help out with the most minor queries.”



Drivers of positive attitudes… continued

Broad offering: Multi-disciplinary risk management was an ideal model, as it provided

higher value to the corporate world as well as increased employment opportunities for post

graduates.

“My knowledge was narrow and the course gave me a good overview of risk. My knowledge

was in credit risk and so one of the core subjects changed my paradigm and introduced me

to general risk principles.” [Current International Student]

“ … it needs to be [multi-disciplinary], for all sorts of reasons. 1) for the longevity of the

course from Monash’s point of view, and 2) for the needs of the real world.”



MRM Detractors: A number of participants had encountered problems with the MRM, and some

of these students had been sufficiently dissatisfied that they either stopped at the Graduate

Diploma level or even without a qualification in one instance.

Insufficiently advanced, little specialisation offered:

“A qualification is important to gain a specialised knowledge in a particular area – especially

at Masters level. One thing I would say about the Monash course is that it was very general

and covered a broad range of topics at a very basic level; I would have liked to be able to

specialise and go into much more detail in a variety of topics. It would be good if you could

specialise in an area of risk management, such as business, law, or finance…”

Too much emphasis on finance & insurance: A number of the alumni reported that the

course was too oriented on finance and insurance, and thus missed some key areas such

as business continuity and governance.

“ … it was bordering on being too financial services centric, but then again, that [industry] is

a big employer of risk management people. But risk management now … is not only in the

financial services arena that that stuff crops up.”



MRM detractors … continued

Variable lecturer quality: Some lecturers were said to have poor presentation skills and

were slow to respond to student queries about courses and which electives to choose. A

number of alumni received little or no feedback on projects from some lecturers, although it

seems likely that this has improved more recently, as no current students commented on

this problem.

“ … and there was very little scope for people to contribute their experiences in how things

actually work. It was as if they were teaching first year undergrads, and that just got up my

nose … they had no people skills.”

“I rang the lecturer to seek some assistance … and he basically said ‘it’s all there, go away.”

“I thought they were not very good at teaching, I thought they were not very good at

listening to the questions that people asked, they weren’t very good at answering …”

Incorrect standards used?: Some believed that the online course brochure referred to an

old Australian standard, and some of the alumni believed that there was too much focus on

the American risk management standards.

“… there was absolutely no acknowledgement of the Australian Standards in the subjects I

did …”



MRM detractors… continued

Poor administrative support: The MRM was sometimes let down by poor administrative

support from Monash.

Student cohort: Some believed that there were too many students with insufficient industry

experience. This was particularly problematic in the more advanced core subjects which

resulted in an inability of these people to contribute.

“ … a few of my friends … had come from the IT background. It makes it difficult for them,

and it’s not fair to put some students in our risk management [course] coming from an IT

background … because information technology and risk management are completely

different.”

Could be marketed better: Some participants noted that the MRM was not well known,

and thought that while the course was likely to have strong appeal to both undergraduates

and those already working in risk management roles, these people were largely unaware of

the course.




Electives lacking structure: Although almost all participants were positive about the ability

to select electives from different faculties, some had experienced difficulty with obtaining

advice on the most appropriate electives, and others questioned the validity of the electives

chosen by the their fellow students (it was suggested these were used to generate high

marks rather than risk management expertise). This resulted in a concern that the MRM

would lose credibility or be perceived as too broad in content by potential employers.

“I think that there is a trap for some people to choose electives that are seen as easy pass

courses though – so it might be best if the electives were tailored to each person’s particular

specialised area of interest.”

“It seems that they [course supervisors] don’t really know anything [about which subjects to

choose] … But we need guidance and advice on what subjects to take – what areas are

more / less popular in practice and what will give us jobs…”




Too expensive: Some international students believed that Monash was more expensive

than other Australian universities. These participants felt that the course did not always

provide value for money, particularly relative to perceived weaknesses in administrative

support and advice on electives.

“ … I find that fees are comparatively very high. It’s not just risk management, it’s all of

Monash, each and every unit, it’s very expensive in comparison to other universities.”

Relationships with Industry could be improved: Some of the industry leaders were

concerned that the MRM’s previously strong relationship with industry may be deteriorating.

While they believed that Michael Vincent was still highly regarded by the industry, they were

concerned that more could be done to foster links with industry.



International - domestic student mix: Whilst not a major issue it was clear that some

found the integration of local and international students problematic. Problems around a

lack of industry experience, and class contribution for international students were nominated

as points of concern for local students.

“The local people only make up 1/3 of the class – if this is a trend then it shows… but this

would be more a trend of the University then the course itself.”

“I think the university on the one hand accepts a high number of international students

because they pay high fees, however on the other hand they often have a low level of

industry experience – this job is about providing fearless advice, challenging the norm…

without experience how can this be done?”

“I really enjoyed the ability to be able to meet and mingle with people who had worked in

industry before – this was great for me because I have not had any industry experience,

coming straight from undergraduate studies. I really tried to associate with these students

and learn as much as possible.” (International student)



Entry Standards: Student evaluations of postgraduate study is often influenced by the quality of

the student cohort. To the extent that the student cohort has varying levels of work and study

experience this can add or detract from the overall experience. Therefore, entry standards play a

major role in determining the overall student experience since entry standards set minimum

levels of work and study experience. It is difficult for Chant Link to advise Monash on suitable

entry standards since this is a strategic decision impacted upon by factors unknown to Chant

Link, such as enrolment predictions relative to standards that are set. However, we make the

following observations:

Work experience +/- undergraduate degree: Work experience impacts ability to contribute

and drives satisfaction, therefore the emphasis on entry standards should be on work

experience. The downside of this approach is that it will be a barrier to some international

students (especially those continuing directly on from undergraduate study with no

experience). The extension of this approach is to accept students with work experience and

no undergraduate qualification, which we would view as acceptable especially for some

career public servants who have no undergraduate experience. The caveat to this argument

would be to require a possible ‘bridging’ unit to be undertaken for those with no

undergraduate qualification.



Entry Standards, continued…

Pass degree only with work experience: This would be acceptable since work experience

is important and it seems unlikely that a pass only qualification would dilute prestige of the

course but would also ensure that an undergraduate standard is applied.

No work experience + credit average: Whilst it gives the appearance of a more ‘exclusive’

entry level it is less desirable, since it will encourage younger students to continue directly

from undergraduate study with little familiarity with risk as a discipline and no work

experience. This detracts from the student experience which ultimately leads to lower

satisfaction and reputation.

Communicating Entry points: The final comment we make on this issue is that we believe,

based on the interviews, it is desirable to communicate the entry point for risk management as

being at a range of levels (i.e. Executive Certificate or Graduate Certificate or Masters level

rather than the alternative which is to only permit enrolment at Masters level and if one exits

early then it is with an Executive Certificate or Graduate Certificate). This is because a Masters

only entry point is potentially intimidating and off-putting and may exclude some of the market

who want a ‘toe-in-the-water’ experience rather than committing to the Masters program intitally.



Reactions to Individual UnitsPast students and current students made some comments on specific units. The following pages

summarise the reactions to specific units:

AFF 5011 Issues in risk management: Overall, participants felt this unit was acceptable and that it should

be kept. However, a small group of respondents felt that this subject should at least be redesigned, if not

removed (or at least, only required for students with limited industry knowledge).

Strengths: This unit was generally well received,

because:

Most participants found it informative, and felt it

covered important material for the risk

management profession;

Interestingly, at least one international student

had a somewhat different view and perceived it

as requiring self direction.

“With this unit you have to learn by yourself with little

direction. You have to try hard and you don’t want to

be lazy.”

Weaknesses: There was a small group of

participants who questioned the value of this unit,

because:

It was not sufficiently advanced, and was

possibly better suited to students with lower

levels of knowledge and experience. These

respondents questioned the relevancy of this

unit at the postgraduate level;

Too much time was invested into the

introduction of the unit;

A few alumni (those that had completed the

course some time ago) felt that this unit lacked

structure.


Reactions to Individual Units … continued

AFF 5021 Case studies in risk management: This unit received some very positive comments, and was

considered by many participants to be one of the greatest attractions for the course

Strengths: Participants were generally positive

about this unit, because it:

Provided tangible examples which students

could relate to and learn from;

Provided an opportunity towards the end of the

course to apply the theory covered in previous

units;

Enabled students to focus in an area relevant to

their own industry and/or job role;

The unit was challenging and interesting for

many students.

“ … because it [AF5021] is now aiming something

specific to the student’s role … and that’s great!”

“I loved this unit it was very interesting.”

Weaknesses: While generally positive about the

unit, some participants raised the following

concerns:

Students with limited risk experience could not

contribute as much in this unit compared with

those who had a risk management

background;

Some material was outdated, or not as

relevant to the rest of the class as to those

students presenting it;

The unit was too unstructured for some

participants, possibly because the other

students lacked the necessary industry

experience to contribute adequately.



AFF 5021 Case studies in risk management … continued:

Strengths … continued:

“I think the way they’re doing it is very good, you’re

all working in different areas, so you should be able

to pick a topic you want to work on … that was very

good … but you should have industry experience

before you do it.””

Weaknesses … continued:

Some participants felt it was important to

ensure that the subject was one of the final

subjects to be completed, to ensure that

students had sufficient theoretical knowledge

to be able to contribute;

Some participants who had completed the unit

some time ago remarked that it had taken a

long time to receive feedback on their

assignment.

Course note quality was inconsistent and

sometimes poorly presented (lacked Monash

branding).

“The last two subjects needed more structure …

they were so dependent on the participants … you

need to make sure that the relevant areas are

covered..”



AFF 5031 Principles of risk transfer: This unit that was generally well received but many participants

viewed it as financially orientated. Insurance Law was perceived to share similarities, if harder, and some

even commented about the possible merger of the two units.

Strengths: Most believed that this unit was

acceptable, and particularly liked:

That it broadened their understanding of risk

management;

At least one industry leader believed that it was

important for graduates to have a sound

understanding of risk transfer;.

“This was a great unit and introduced me to a new

way of thinking.”

Weaknesses: There were some participants who

were less supportive of this unit, who raised the

following issues:

The unit was somewhat outdated, particularly

as it referred to risk transfer rather than risk

sharing;

Some participants felt that this unit (and

possibly the course overall) had too much

emphasis on insurance.

“ … this needs to be brought up to date with all the

new techniques … it’s no longer cutting edge, it’s

looking like an FJ Holden!”



BTX 5031 Insurance law: Many liked this unit and made favourable comments about the lecturer who

offered practical insights. It was possibly harder for some international students and also less relevance for

those who were less insurance oriented.

Strengths: Participants were generally positive

about this unit, and noted that:

The lecturer was well respected and had

practical experience (he had worked for ANZ)

and was able to provide valuable insights into

the banking industry;

At least one industry leader believed that it was

important for graduates to have a sound

understanding of Insurance Law, and that this

was one of the most important units (so should

remain a core subject);

Provided good grounding for communication

and analytical skills.

“There is no exam and it is assignment based. It is

good for written and analytical skills but maybe

difficult for international students.”



concerns:

Some participants felt that this unit (and

indeed, the course overall) had too much

emphasis on insurance;

The unit might be too difficult for international

students.

“… if you’re not interested in insurance then it would

have less relevance to you.”



AFF 9020 Introduction to risk principles: Probably regarded as one of the easier, though important, units

which could have been made more challenging. Two participants suggested that it could be condensed to

less than one semester, and one of the industry leaders emphasised that it needed to be brought up to date

with the International Standards, to be released in 18 months.

Strengths: Although the unit was relatively basic,

most participants acknowledged that it provided an

important foundation to the rest of the course.

“Important first subject that gives you a good

grounding. Sets the framework for the course.”



concerns:

Could be shorter;

A few participants felt that this unit was too

basic to be a core unit in a postgraduate

degree;

Two industry leaders felt that it referred to an

outdated standard.



AFF 9770 Risk financing and treasury management: There was a range of opinions on this subject.

Some found it difficult, most relevant for people who were interested in or involved with finance risk. Some

thought it was excellent, whilst others requested greater depth on market and credit risk, such as related to

anti-money laundering.

Strengths: Many participants spoke very highly of

this unit (particularly those within the banking and

finance industries).

“The Finance and Treasury one was fantastic …

really interesting and not ‘airy-fairy’ at all.”

Weaknesses: Participants raised the following

concerns with this unit:

Perhaps too financially oriented, and only

relevant interested or working in the finance

sector;

One or two of the past students, having

completed this unit some years ago,

commented that the classes (in block mode)

were too big.

Should include more credit and market risk

material.



BTX 9760 Risk control and the law: This subject did not receive much comment although some found

learning about liability issues to be of interest. One international student thought that it was locally oriented

and therefore had reduced value from an international student perspective.

Strengths: A few of the participants were quite

enthusiastic about this unit, because it:

Provided an opportunity to learn about liability

issues;

Was interesting and valuable course material;

Was a well presented unit;

Had high calibre of guest lecturers who

presented.

Weaknesses: The following concerns were raised:

Was insufficiently advanced (the unit was more

at the undergraduate level);

Too orientated towards Australian issues;

One participant noted that the unit appeared to

lack a coordinator (the guest lecturers were

good, but there was no one for the students to

follow-up with).

“This was less relevant to international students.

Some wondered why they had to do this. I would

give this unit 6/10.”

“ … we had a different lecturer for each session so

we never established a relationship with one

lecturer.”



ETX 9520 Quantitative methods for risk analysis: This unit received the most comment of all. Most found

it difficult and were critical for a range for reasons, however there were some who were quite positive about

what had been learned at its conclusion.

Strengths: Although only one participant was

strongly supportive of the unit as it was, a number

believed that it was important that the course at least

covered quantitative methods, albeit in perhaps a

different way to its current format.

Weaknesses: There were a range of opinions

expressed:

Difficult: Many commented that this was a

difficult unit and it was thought that some had

failed or at least struggled and considered

dropping out. It was perceived to require some

statistical grounding that was lacking for some.

Further, some thought that they could have

been better informed about the need for a base

level of knowledge (both regarding statistics

and MS Excel) prior to the commencement of

the unit;

Lack of support: Related to the above point a

small number felt that support was lacking and

more could be done to assist struggling

students;



ETX 9520 Quantitative methods for risk analysis … continued:

Weaknesses … continued:

Questions over teaching style: An over reliance on PowerPoint and handouts were mentioned by

some;

Questions about its value: There were a small minority who wondered whether this unit should be

abandoned. Whilst not stated explicitly one of the reasons for this was simply that it was difficult and

some would simply liked to have avoided it. However, there were some more ‘valid’ reasons for

considering not running this unit, as one statistical subject was considered to be not enough: To be

truly of value more needed to be taught, not less. A single statistical subject provided only limited

value to risk management students for two reasons: 1) Few risk management disciplines were said to

require a deep knowledge of statistics and 2) even if statistical knowledge was required, a single unit

was not sufficient.

“I thought it was death by PowerPoint … and the handouts for this lecture were poor.”

“You’d have to be a statistician to do this course. Also, the Lecturer was difficult. We have written

complaints to the Dean.”


Reactions to Possible Course Structure ChangeIncreased electives / reduced core units: Participants were asked to give their reactions to a

possible reduction in core units from eight to six and a corresponding increase in electives from

four to six. There were mixed reactions to this concept from the very positive to the very

negative.

Positive reactions: Those that liked the concept typically argued that it had the benefit of

allowing students to tailor their course to their areas of expertise and interest. This allowed

for a customised degree which held greater appeal than the traditional, less flexible offer.

For example, if a student was specifically interested in risk management in the health area

they could potentially pick up subjects from the faculty of medicine. A customised degree

allowed students to pick areas of personal and professional interest, which could make

them more employable.

“This is brilliant but will probably cost more. It is good because it offers greater choice

which is important in an area as diverse as risk management. It would be great to draw

upon other faculties units.”


Reactions to Possible Course Structure ChangeReactions to increased electives / reduced core units, continued…

Positive reactions, continued…

“Universities are about teaching and research and this drives quality and quality attracts

students.”

“I would have loved to select some MBA courses as electives. It’s strange actually, because

I think that you can do a MBA/ MRM double degree but you can not choose electives from

the MBA.”

“It makes sense to increase the electives offered, since the Australian Standard AS4360

has elements across many areas.”



Negative reactions: The most common concern with the concept was that it would lead to

less well trained risk managers (because ‘the basics’ have been reduced from eight to six).

A further concern was that it would not appeal to international students, since international

students sought greater structure, not less. Related to this, some wondered about the

appeal of this idea for those who were not really sure of their specific interests or career

orientation. For such people, picking appropriate electives would be problematic. Also,

some wondered about the logistics and time-table management of a course with a greater

number of electives from other faculties / disciplines.

“I don’t think this is a good idea. It would be easy for international students to get lost.

Foreign students prefer guidance and the more electives you have the less appealing it will

be. International students are usually younger and less experienced and so it will not

appeal. Local students would probably like it. With six electives I would need even more

guidance.”

“If a smaller number of core units are required then it is like saying that you can learn the

basics with less units. I doubt you can teach the basics in six units and instead need eight. It

also lowers the value.”



Negative reactions, continued…

“It may not appeal to international students as it requires greater self-direction, which some

are not good at.”

“Unfortunately, flexibility means having to change the timetable.”

“How do you organise six and six to give a solid practical knowledge in risk?”

“If people just choose six easy electives, then in reality they would only have half a Masters

degree in risk management – and that would be no good for developing a strong position in

industry for MRM graduates. Graduates need to be highly skilled in their specialised area.”

“I really think that changing to have 6 electives of your choice will just deplete the quality of

the course and graduates unless the electives are risk related. If you do 6 units in risk

management and 6 in History, are you a risk manager or a historian? And what benefit are

your electives going to be to your risk management role?”

The table on the following page summarises the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the

eight versus six core unit offers:


PROS CONS

Eight core :

four

electives

(current)

Provides thorough grounding in risk

management;

More structured;

Preferred by International Students;

Harder

Reduced ability to tailor course

Required to complete

unnecessary units;

Preferred by International

Students;

Lower appeal for domestic /

industry students.

Six core :

six electives

(proposed)

Greater flexibility;

More subjects to choose from;

Ability to study across multiple

faculties;

More tailored to individual needs (no

“unnecessary” subjects).

May miss out on important units;

Increased setup complexity;

Lower quality graduates (dilution

of risk knowledge)

Lower appeal for International

students or those who were

unclear about their career;

“Soft” option.

Reactions to Possible Course Structure Change


Reactions to Possible Course Structure ChangeIssues associated with change:

Which units stay and which go?: The discussion around introducing more electives

prompted some to wonder which core units might be dropped. For some, quantitative

methods was an obvious candidate because it was considered difficult and of limited value

as a one-off statistical subject. Others made suggestions around possible unit mergers.

“I believe that insurance is part of the risk management process and believe it is important

to study the topic as part of a risk management degree. Consequently, it is important for risk

managers to know about the law relating to insurance. If it was determined that the number

of core units was to be reduced then I would suggest a merging of 'Insurance Law' and

'Principles of Risk Transfer' into a single subject.

“I would eliminate the subject 'Quantitative Methods for Risk Analysis' as I do not believe it

should be considered a core subject. This because all the other core subjects are very high

level and can be used in any organisation. Also, I believe a single 'statistic' subject provides

only a limited value to risk management students as few risk management work areas

require a knowledge of statistics. If a student requires statistics knowledge then I believe a

single subject would not assist them greatly.”

Further discussion about reactions to specific units appears earlier in the report.



Requires some guidance / structure: If the concept was to be introduced most argued

that it required some guidance with respect to the appropriate mix of electives. Most thought

that it was not sufficient to leave the elective selections entirely up to the student and

instead most sought the ability to choose electives from a loosely arranged set of options.

For example, if a student was interested in risk management in health, then a

recommended set (or sets) of electives for this should be available. Likewise, if a student

came from an OH&S background then a set of electives suited to this should be proposed.

In this way, students would have the freedom to tailor their course within some structure.

“I would like to see suggestions and recommendations from Monash about choosing

electives. For example, Monash might say. ‘if you want to be strong in financial risk

management we recommend you do the following set of electives. Or if you are interested in

operational risk management then A, B, C and D are appropriate’. A bit more guidance

would help.”



Vary the number of electives available according to experience: A further alternative

raised unprompted by some was that the number of electives available for selection could

vary based upon a students’ level of risk management experience. For example, an older

more experienced student with a risk background might be eligible for the six elective offer

whereas a less experienced student would only be able to undertake four electives.

“I believe that international students and students with less than 2 years work experience in

a risk management area should be required to undertake the MRM with 8 core units.

Students who have been working in the risk management field for 2 years or more could be

required to complete only 6 core units. This would leave them 6 'elective' units to specialise

their risk management knowledge.”


Issues associated with change:

International and domestic student reactions differ: Across the sample, international

students were more likely to be negative towards the increased electives concept than local

students. Typically international students preferred a more structured model. Industry

leaders also thought that if the course did not appeal to international students there was a

real revenue risk. Conversely, if the increased electives held high appeal to domestic

students then not to offer this would be failing to meet the needs of domestic students.

What this illustrated was the broad issue of apparent differences in needs between local

and international student on a range of issues (not just the topic of the number of core

versus elective units offered):

□ International preferences: Face-to-face, directed study, structure, full-time,

weekdays, decreased electives;

□ Domestic preferences: Block-mode, weekend learning, interaction, unstructured,

increased electives.

Reactions to Possible Course Structure Change


Changes and ImprovementsSuggested improvements: Participants made a range of suggestions as to how to improve the

risk management program. These can be broadly divided into three areas:

1. Course / unit related suggestions;

2. Administration;

3. Strategic considerations.

Each is explored in the following pages:

1. Course / unit related suggestions: There were a range of subject areas mentioned by

participants where it was thought that the course could provide greater emphasis. These

included:

Risk management for directors: A number of people commented that company

directors were often poorly trained and needed greater training in a range of areas

including board-related risks, governance and compliance.

“I think a unit on Director’s responsibilities perhaps run in conjunction with the AICD or

ASIC would be important. Director’s responsibilities could be emphasised more, since a

lot don’t know their duties and can’t read balance sheets. Liquidity and trading while

insolvent is a real risk.” [Industry Leader]


Changes and Improvements…continued

1. Course / unit related suggestions…

Environmental and social responsibility risk: A new and growing area mentioned by a

small number related to environmental risk. The thinking here was that this would continue

to grow in importance and was not well understood by most. Further, many risk mangers

came from an accounting / commerce background and hence knew very little about this

area. Examples of possible content included risk on carbon trading / credits and managing

risk related to environmental disasters.

Project risk management: Project-based risk management was thought to be covered only

minimally in the current syllabus. Greater emphasis in this area was mentioned by a few.

“If you look a bit deeper into risk management jobs, nearly all are finance-based (banking

and insurance),… it tells me that there is that narrow view of risk management – and this

area in project risk management is not really covered…”



‘Soft’ risk skills: A number of people commented that a newer (and probably neglected)

area of risk related to issues of staff retention, burnout avoidance and human capital

management. These were real risks and an area which required greater attention from

educators. For example, the costs to a firm associated with the departure of senior

management were significant and needed to be managed. This might mean including

electives in areas such as psychology and sociology.

“Risk management is a mix of science and art. We need to encourage a person to drive

change in an organisation to embrace risk and to protect against threats and grow

opportunities. This means good risk management to me.”




Communicating risk management internally: Risk Managers needed to be taught how to

communicate effectively to senior management. There were two suggestions here:

□ Promoting the importance of risk management: Since some organisations still

perceived risk management as a cost not a benefit and did not fully understand the

area, it was suggested that risk managers needed to be better at selling themselves to

internal stakeholders, so that organisations better understood what it was and its

importance.

□ Communicating actual risk issues: Risk managers also needed to be taught how to

communicate their information to boards and senior management. Communication in

ordinary business language rather than risk management terminology was important:

“ … in my experience, people who are really good at ‘it if this fall’s over, the whole

organisation will fall over’ aren’t very good at convincing management up the line.

[Risk managers] need to give them something that they understand and that is

easy to understand for anyone involved in the [risk management] process.”

“ … one of the big things with risk management to me is being able to talk to the

people who don’t speak the language of the risk manager.”





IT and Ecommerce: Ecommerce & IT risk management was cited as an absentee from the

course. Some thought that these issues were becoming more important with the growth of

the internet, innovation & technology and related securities issues.

“For example, as innovation changes the whole commerce world, what are the implication

for companies & commerce? What level of risk would that create for organisations &

corporates? Any identity frauds, financial frauds, competitive advantage risks…. None of

these were covered in the course and these are potentially really important issues around

the globe.”



Auditors responsibilities: Another area for Monash to consider was in auditors

responsibilities. Some believed it was important for company directors and management

leaders to know how to evaluate an audit.

“Major audit companies are being hoodwinked by business. Train risk managers in audit

responsibilities to check and understand auditing.”

OH&S: Improved emphasis on risk management in OH&S was thought to be an

opportunity.

“I know it is covered in the risk management programs but is it being practiced and

understood?”

Risk management in organisational change: Another area the interviewee said was

worth greater course coverage was in business divestments, amalgamations, takeovers,

mergers and acquisitions. Managing risk in these areas required special skills.

Changes and improvements…continued



Risk Management in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs): A small number of participants

who were involved in risk management in the government sector argued strongly for a unit

on PPPs. This was an area where there had been growth, coupled with high profile

problems—which made the area relevant and complex. PPPs were viewed as a way for

government to potentially minimise or transfer risk, but at the same time may not minimise

risk but instead change the nature of the risks. Consequently, some believed that it was an

area that was topical and relevant both to government and industry participants.

“If Monash was to offer detailed course content on PPPs that would attract students.

Governments have embraced PPPs as a risk aversion strategy, even though this may not

be explicitly stated, but it raises the question of how Governemnt manages risk of a third

party.”

Risk Management for those with government relationships: Arising from the suggestion

of a unit in PPPs, was the further idea of a broad unit on risk in government (which would

include PPP content). The concept here was that there were other risk issues in

government which would be relevant including, how to manage budgets and therefore PPP

education might simply be part of a larger risk-in-government unit.

Changes and improvements…continued


2. Administration

Improve administration & student support: A number of participants commented

unprompted regarding the variable quality of the administration experience. There was a

general view that it was hard to get support, advice on unit selection and some course

materials (which were somewhat dated). Also, there was a lack of staff to make the lecture

material and notes available on the web quickly and to turn around requests quickly.



3. Strategic considerations

The bigger risk picture: Many of the new unit suggestions had one theme in common:

broader-based risk management education. There were many comments made that risk

management is now a very broad area and integrated in business processes and that a

syllabus needs to reflect this. That is, whilst not ignoring its financial roots, it needed to

include other non-traditional areas.

“Some further detail on how risk management fits in the world and in business practice

would be helpful.”

“ … risk management isn’t only about financial services. It is not only about the quantum, it’s

about other things, [like] business continuity planning, what appear to be mundane sorts of

things that are so frightful if you get them wrong.”




Further alignment with GSB: Related to the previous point about modifying the course to

encompass a broader range of areas, comes the suggestion to improve alignment with the

GSB. Many participants agreed very strongly that the MRM belonged with the GSB and not

the narrow confines of accounting and finance. One reason for this was that to leave the

MRM with accounting and finance might be off-putting to a new generation of risk mangers

who were not so focused in this area alone.

“The course should be definitely in the Graduate School because you need to have a

certain degree of experience to appreciate risk.”




More guest lecturers should be used: It was common for participants to make very

favourable comments about sessional lecturers in the course. Where possible, more such

lecturers were sought, who were well known and / or worked in senior risk roles.

“ … industry leader and practitioners, people who can present. I’ve been to lectures where

they’ve had a guest lecturer, and all you wanted to do was … fall asleep. They may know

their stuff, but they can’t present that stuff in a meaningful way.”

“ … you can’t just talk to the slides, they have to be best practice practitioners and good

presenters.”

More marketing communications / better branding: Some argued for more promotion of

the course as a means of attracting greater students and also adding to the perceived

prestige of their qualifications. There was also the suggestion that the course could be

branded better. It was argued that risk management was a growth area but that there was

no pre-eminent educational brand for risk management. The GSB alignment may help in

this regard.




An offer to industry: A major opportunity for Monash was perceived to be in taking

advantage of the well documented skills shortage and problems in staff retention. To this

some thought that Monash should work hard on forming relationships with industry and

offering risk management as a means of staff retention.

“Keeping staff is a huge issue and if an employer offered a relevant, paid-for Master of Risk

Management this would be good for the employee and employer.”




Streams: A number of respondents suggested that a more formal ‘stream’ approach be

adopted. Whilst there was variation in terms of what would constitute appropriate streams,

the general view was that the introduction of three-four key streams for the risk

management program could be desirable. Suggestions included:□ Major in Finance (Economics);□ Major in Law (compliance and governance); and□ Major in social sciences.

“In the perfect world it would sit in the business faculty with four streams. These would be,

financial, organisation planning, functions / operations and compliance. I think risk

management is a sub-discipline of management overall.” [Industry Leader, Academic]

“It would have been nice to have an advanced stream that the more advanced students

could attend.” [Current Domestic Student]



3. Strategic considerations…

Improved industry / government relationship: A common suggestion was to improve

relationships with industry and government. ASIC was given as one example, since ASIC

was closely involved in risk management. Course endorsement, relationships and

partnerships could be further fostered which would add credibility and quality to the course

and improve branding.

“I would be going to industry with two propositions. One, ensuring that senior mangers are

risk trained and emphasising the importance of this and two, encouraging employers to pay

for risk management education for staff as a means of retaining employees.”

“Monash should identify industries and tailor a course offer for these. For example, create

an offer for the defence industry or health sector, banking which included a couple of units

that specifically for these industries.”



Background

Conclusions & Recommendations


ConclusionsThe table below summarises the current market situation for risk management:

Growth:

Increased

importance;

Greater breadth of

coverage;

Perceived as a

profession not an

isolated discipline;

Increased importance

of qualifications;

Proactive approach to

risk management, not

reactive.

Driven by:

Corporate

collapses;

Litigation;

Economic

growth;

Risk aversion;

Regulatory

environment;

Personal liability

concerns.

Moderators:

Is it a phase /

fad?;

Perceived as

a cost not a

benefit;

Integration

not uniform

across

industries.

Outcomes.

Continued growth

predicted;

Greater intra- and

inter-corporate

integration;

Continued

broadening of

discipline to

include ‘non-

traditional areas’;

Greater value

placed on

accreditation and

qualifications in

RM.


ConclusionsMonash MRM well positioned and regarded and likely to grow given the increasing

prominence of risk management: Participants predicted that risk management would continue

to grow in importance and so too would the value of qualifications in this area. Monash was well

positioned to take advantage of this since it was very well regarded. The table on the following

page summarises the major issues facing the Monash risk management program.


Summary of Issues for Monash MRM:

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Reputation of Monash and

risk management course;

Quality of student

experience;

‘First-to-market’

advantages;

Excellent lecturers and

sessional staff;

Block mode and flexibility

of delivery;

Ability to leverage size of

Monash to offer tailored

electives;

Appropriate course content

and structure.

Variable

administration

experiences;

Too finance and

accounting focused;

Managing domestic

and international

student experience;

Gaps in unit offers

beyond accounting

and finance;

Lack of advice and

direction in unit

selection / careers;

Out-dated

materials.

Greater alignment with GSB

to avoid perceptions of narrow

(A&F) scope;

Increase breadth of units

offered that corresponds with

growth in breadth of

discipline;

Consider increase in electives

to six to accommodate

desired breadth and tailoring;

Improve industry links and

develop offers;

Likely growth in interest in risk

qualifications commensurate

with growth in the discipline.

Growth of

competitors—though

not currently an

issue;

Erosion of industry

links;

Decreased perceived

importance of risk

management to

organisations

(unlikely);

Move to six electives

may dilute perceived

risk management

grounding.

Conclusions


Recommendations1. Broaden unit offering and reduce (perceived) emphasis on accounting and finance-related risk: Since the market

perceives risk management to have become more integrated with all aspects of business it follows that a university offer

should also reflect this. Monash was regarded as being quite focused on accounting and finance and whilst it should not

move away from this, it will be important to offer units in non-traditional risk areas as well. Examples could include:

□ Units related to risks for board members (i.e. governance, takeovers, compliance etc);

□ ‘Soft skills’ in risk (Arts-related);

□ IT and ecommerce risk;

□ Project management risk;

□ PPP / Government oriented risk;

□ Unit groupings tailored to specific industries.

Exactly, how this is structured is a strategic issue for Monash, but in order to achieve this it will be desirable to develop a

framework for new units, discussed next. Given that Chant Link is not highly familiar with unit content we cannot be too

definitive about the right approach however, we offer the following recommendations:


Recommendations2. Restructure Syllabus Option 1: Eight core + Four electives and restructure as follows:

□ Drop Quantitative Methods due to low appeal and criticisms;

□ Amalgamate Issues in Risk Management and Case Studies in Risk Management into a single unit or keep both and

drop Risk Control and the Law (since this did not generate much enthusiasm);

□ Replace the two core units with two alternative units that better reflect the broad areas of interest to prospective

students. For example:

A ‘softer’ risk skills units which might incorporate promoting risk management to internal audiences, and;

A unit perhaps on ‘emerging risk’, which could cover growth areas such as reputational, environmental, PPPs and

other areas of risk.

□ For the four elective units, offer ‘streams’ related to disciplines and probably aligned to faculties. For example, provide

students with an array of pre-determined elective units for people in health or government etc.

The advantage with this approach is that is still provides the solid grounding in risk that students sought, would be less likely

to alienate international students and yet subtly re-orient the course to current market trends. It is a lower risk approach.


Recommendations2. Restructure Syllabus (continued) Option 2: Six + Six and restructure as follows:

□ Drop Quantitative Methods due to low appeal and criticisms;

□ Amalgamate Issues in Risk Management and Case Studies in Risk Management into a single unit

or keep both and drop Risk Control and the Law (since this did not generate much enthusiasm);

□ For the six elective units, offer ‘streams’ related to disciplines and probably aligned to faculties.

For example, provide students with an array of pre-determined elective units for people in health

or government etc.

The advantage with this approach is that it allows the student to specialise much earlier in the area of

interest to them. It may dilute the perceived grounding in risk principles which is a risk that may alienate

international students. However, it would re-orient the course to current market trends. It is a slightly

higher risk approach.


Recommendations3. Proceed with caution if electives are increased from four to six: The current structure

of four electives was well regarded and provided the right balance between sufficient

grounding in risk management and an opportunity to tailor. Whilst there were some who

were clearly interested in more electives, international students may not be attracted to

this. It may be worth considering an option for more experienced risk mangers to

undertake six electives should they choose and maintaining four electives for others.

4. Continue positioning with GSB: As an adjunct to the previous points we recommend

closer ties and links with the GSB which will emphasise that the course is positioned as a

part of overall business practice, not just a discipline of accounting and finance.


Recommendations5. Offer unit selection and careers advice: An increase in electives or greater flexibility /

breadth of offer to undertake units outside of the GSB requires advice and support for

students. Students did not want ‘carte blanche’ and instead sought some direction. For

example, they wanted Monash to make suggestions such as: ‘Here are the elective units

we recommend if interested in focusing on risk in the health profession or policing’ etc.

6. Improve overall student experience: Whilst the student experience was overall positive

there were some areas of weakness including administration, variable lecture quality and

a perception of some materials being out-dated. Desirably, the overall experience can be

improved.


Recommendations7. Foster greater links with key industry sectors and players: Industry links help build the Monash reputation and also

represent a source of students. To this end ASIC, RMIA and AICD among others were suggested as opportunities. Also, it

would be desirable to develop course offerings tailored for specific industries such as mining, health and so forth as well as

groups of people such as new board members.

8. Manage international / domestic student relations: Whilst potentially difficult to meet the (sometimes) differing needs of

these groups, it nonetheless should to be considered. For example, that block mode appeals to local students but less to

international should not mean that it is abandoned. Desirably it should run in conjunction with business hours unit offers.

9. Expand marketing communications: Whilst Chant Link & Associates cannot be aware of the budget available or

feasibility of such a recommendation, it would be desirable to further promote the course, especially since it is top-of-mind

currently for many senior managers. To this end we recommend targeted use of media such as industry journals rather

than mainstream media, due to the specialised nature of the field.


610 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn

Victoria Australia 3122

Telephone: (61-3) 9819 5244

Fax: (61-3) 9819 6270

Email [email protected]

a report on alignment of masters of risk management course to student needs and industry trends

Documents

risk management course

area of risk management

risk management programs

specific risk management

risk related issues

directorchant link associates

monash university

quality of monash